Normandy 2.0 FAQ

[GUFA]

4 minutes ago, 71st_AH Rob said:

A better solution from my perspective would be to actually replace Normandy V1.0 and then I only require two maps of the same area. 

Why stop there Why not "role" The Channel into it as well. I actually bought Normandy V.1 first and I really held off on the Channel. At the time reviewers seemed to be leaning in that (Normandy 44) direction. Look I just think Ugra need to go to ED and say, We should be responsible Central Europe( preferably all era's) and just be done with it. Really would like maps to be maps, not particular time periods.

[Magic Zach]

26 minutes ago, Skewgear said:

How many of these were active during the Operation Neptune period (June - August 1944)? I see some are in red with what might be closure dates on them. Would be good to have a similar map but only displaying airfields that were operating during that specific period, as that is what Ugra tells us they're going to be modelling.

Still scratching my head at the lack of Dreux, one of the main Luftwaffe operating bases during the Normandy campaign, or any USAAF stations in England. The original UK airfields made sense at an early stage of DCS WW2: Needs Oar Point was a major Typhoon base, Tangmere and Ford housed multiple Spitfire wings (and in Ford's case a major Spitfire MRO unit) that were posted to France as advanced landing grounds were built there, Funtington housed UK-based Spitfire wings held in reserve during Operation Overlord/Neptune.

I haven't completed the map yet and probably won't for a fair handful of days yet.  I don't think I can automatically filter airfields away by date though, on the website I'm using.  But I have added information and dates to each and every field and landing ground, if one wants to know more about the individual field

[golani79]

Looking forward to the new map - 10 bucks is a good price if you already own Normandy and the Channel.

Just disappointet about the missing high res "L" and no winter textures ..

[[AUSSIE]t0min8t0r]

15 hours ago, NineLine said:

I mean if this new tech grows from here, the possibilities are endless, something like this would probably be important for an entire globe as well, being able to have chunks of high detailed that you wanted, etc. So while it would be nice to add the Channel chunk in there, I am not sure its possible or planned right now, we just need to see how this first step works and is handled by everyone and everything. 

this idea of paying for extra high detailed areas within a world map the way you motioned is what i have been dreaming of for dcs ever since a world map first became a topic im glad someone from ed has the same opinion, also can't wait for it to possibly become a reality in the future  

1 hour ago, twistking said:

I remember that ED once said tgey were working on - or at least considering - tech that could change aspects of maps. This would come in really handy here to hide those advanced landing grounds in France giving the map much more credibility for pre-invasion missions. The history buffs will of course always find a thousand more things to be ahistoric, but i think for the general playerbase, the advanced landing grounds are THE giveaway that the map is mid/late 1944.

+1

[Ydjslm]

8小时前，RafaPolit说：

So you are trying to make it "more fair" for owners of both maps by charging them more for the upgrade?  How is that "better"?  I own both maps and I wouldn't prefer your solution over the current one.

The problem now is unfairness.Of course changing it into 'DCS: Normandy 2 will be available as a complete map for $59.99 USD. If you have DCS: Normandy 1944, you can purchase Normandy 2 for $14.99 USD. If you own both DCS: Normandy 1944 and DCS: The Channel map,you can purchase DCS: Normandy 2 for only $9.99 USD.' is better.But actually Channel map shouldn't be involved in this.Relationship between Normandy map and Normandy 2 map is just like A-10C and A-10C II.'DCS: A-10C II Tank Killer is available now for $79.99. If you own DCS: A-10C Warthog, you can upgrade to DCS: A-10C II Tank Killer for only $9.99 until the 31st of October 2020. After that,the upgrade will cost $19.99.'

[RafaPolit]

22 minutes ago, Ydjslm said:

The problem now is unfairness.Of course changing it into 'DCS: Normandy 2 will be available as a complete map for $59.99 USD. If you have DCS: Normandy 1944, you can purchase Normandy 2 for $14.99 USD. If you own both DCS: Normandy 1944 and DCS: The Channel map,you can purchase DCS: Normandy 2 for only $9.99 USD.' is better.But actually Channel map shouldn't be involved in this.Relationship between Normandy map and Normandy 2 map is just like A-10C and A-10C II.'DCS: A-10C II Tank Killer is available now for $79.99. If you own DCS: A-10C Warthog, you can upgrade to DCS: A-10C II Tank Killer for only $9.99 until the 31st of October 2020. After that,the upgrade will cost $19.99.'

I don't think it's as simple.  Since the Normandy 2 map encompasses the entire Channel map, but with a lower resolution, it is somewhat involved in the mix.  I agree it's a "better deal" for those that only purchased the Channel to upgrade to V2 as they get the "bigger" map for less.  But we paid for those maps knowing what we were purchasing.  

If you purchase a car and have to purchase the stereo separately for $1000, and during the next month someone offers the car with the stereo included for $200 extra, would you say: "don't do that, it's unfair to the person that paid $1000 before, charge $1000 for the stereo here to avoid being unfair"?  It's not great timing, but we have "enjoyed" the map this while, so I think it's a good upgrade plan.

What seems unfair is if new purchases need to actually consider purchasing both V2 and ALSO V1 to be able to run the missions.  That would really suck.

[Rosebud47]

While appreciate the new map, better graphics, wider areas, London, Paris, the discount for owners of old maps, the bad taste which accompanies does not go away.

The NE area of Normandy 2.0 is not by coincident left in low graphical fidelity. Remind that a new player has to pay full prize 59,90 $, but gets a map with 1/4 of the area in low quality.

More than that, the low quality area in Normandy 2.0 obviously is a placeholder for The Channel map, because there IS a Channel map on sale and not any other map and not any other low quality area on the new Normandy 2.0. That means, that sooner or later the low quality area on the Normandy 2.0 map will be filled by this one Channel map - could be filled immediately or in 1 or 2 years - it´s just a decision, not a technical issue.

The difference between a serious business and a scam is, that the scammer will always try to pull out the sense of any discussion or critique by saying: "Take it or leave it".

Well, thank you. 

[Ydjslm]

13分钟前，RafaPolit说：

I agree it's a "better deal" for those that only purchased the Channel to upgrade to V2 as they get the "bigger" map for less. 

Equivalent to they bought DCS: Normandy 1944 map with $5.

[twistking]

Sorry, but i think it's pointless to discuss pricing to that extend. The pricing seems fair (when you generally accept that maps are payware). Saying anything else is splitting hairs.
Of course it sucks that for customers in some regions dcs is prohibitly expensive due to exchange rates etc., but that's a problem of regional pricing (or lack thereof). Arguing about single digit dollar differences between different upgrade paths seems to miss the mark here.

There are other concerns that were raised here, that have more merit, i think.

Normandy 2.0 should be the map that ends the DCS WWII western front kerfuffle, but as of now people are rightfully worried, that it might add to it. ED, Ugra, get rid of the L, give us a fair square!

Edited October 11, 2022 by twistking

[Ydjslm]

25分钟前，twistking说：

Arguing about single digit dollar differences between different upgrade paths seems to miss the mark here.

The difference is at least $17.405.

[skywalker22]

One q: why not including Channel map, and having high resolution NE side of the Normandy 2.0?

This would be a step back regarding that part of the map, compared to what we already have.

[Cliffhanger31]

53 minutes ago, twistking said:

Normandy 2.0 should be the map that ends the DCS WWII western front kerfuffle, but as of now people are rightfully worried, that it might add to it. ED, Ugra, get rid of the L, give us a fair square!

This

Normandy 2.0 will be a great addition to DCS even as it currently stands. There is, however, an opportunity here to make this a truly epic map and the definitive WW2 Western Front flight sim experience. ED and Urga, there is potential for a real home run here, let’s make it happen! 

Edited October 11, 2022 by Cliffhanger31

[Callsign112]

17 hours ago, Reflected said:

THIS is a very important question. The original announcement said that old missions will be compatible, now this one says the opposite. If Rudel's idea works, bringing them over to 2.0 may be feasible, otherwise one can just set them up from scratch again. By feasible I mean we'd still need to double check the location of each object, etc, but at least everything would be set up already.

 

14 hours ago, Tree_Beard said:

So if I am following correctly, this map is not a simple improvement to the old Normandy map, but instead was completely built from scratch with brand new map making tech.
 

While new tech is certainly exiting, what I’m really struggling to wrap my head around, then, is why the decision was made to develop literally a third map of the English Channel, when that setting still has very limited relevance to the assets we have in the game.

 

 

11 hours ago, RafaPolit said:

I was really excited about this launch, and I praised the pricing model both on ED's Discord and on Facebook.

This FAQ leaves me feeling that the launch post was, at least, wrongly written if not intentionally misleading.  Phrases like 

This, to anyone that can read English, means that the previous campaigns are compatible with the new map.

In that sense, it made a lot of sense to have a NEW V2.0 map that replaces the old one and is offered to previous users at a discounted price.  But the wordings on this FAQ suggest that V1.0 and V2.0 will not only coexist, but that they will be SEPARATE purchases from now on?  So, as @Reflected has pointed out, new users would be faced with a scenario of purchasing two different versions of, more or less, the same map if they want to play the previous campaigns?

And us existing users would have two maps that represent, roughly, the same area just to keep our previous campaigns as an option?

This not only sounds like a terrible user experience, it is a very poor business decision: from the pure "money making" point of view, but also from the point of view of third party developers that spend their time with the products that ED decide to greenlight.

So, that brings me to the "core" of my complaint: ED needs to enforce a certain "standard", even if products are developed by third parties, because they reflect on EDs game and the user-base purchase decisions.

For example, I highly question the decision to make a map around a particular operation on a particular month of a particular year.  Sure, you need to pick a point in time to structure a map, but limiting the option to use it on other seasons really makes for a very niche product (on an already niched market on a platform where you would have not one but two maps of the exact same region!!!).  So, if seasons make a big impact on a map (like the Caucasus, or Normandy!), EDs requirements for third party developers should enforce some sort of versatility in that sense.

In a world where you are facing competition from the likes of MSFS where you can fly anywhere in the world, to have a map model that forces 3 maps encompassing roughly the same area to be bought separately seems like walking backwards instead of moving forward.

Please, as the pricing model was a sensible one, make this "a good" decision for users!  This, in my mind means:
- V2 REPLACES V1, they don't coexist, but...
- V2 is compatible with campaigns made for V1 (obviously minor tweaks would be needed, but minor nonetheless)
- V2 is a more versatile map that also allows for winter (and ideally autumn) looks
- existing V1 players that don't want to upgrade can do so, but not because they want to keep playing their already paid-for missions, but because they prefer not to spend more now... they simply won't enjoy the higher detail and extended areas
- ideally, at some point the channel gets merged and users looking for the WWII Europe scenario need to make ONE good purchase, which makes the decision somewhat simpler!

So, my enthusiasm shared by me on the original launch post has been completely muddied here with decisions that seems less technical and more commercial.

I hope at least some of the points above turn out to be true and we end up with a less absurd scenario than 3 maps of the the same region with no particular benefit of having all three.

 

Rafa.

 

This is turning into a real fuster cluck!

I also understood from the initial announcement that Ugra was going to expand/update their Normandy map. The fact that old missions were supposed to be compatible is what led me to believe we would still only have 1 Normandy map after the upgrade.

But the recent news actually legitimizes arguments from posters like @GUFA, and raises serious questions as to why ED and its third parties would even venture down this road. Kick starter 2.0!

In light of the recent news, Ugra should fix their Normandy map, and exclude all areas currently covered by it and the Channel map. If that means drawing an "L" shaped map just to include London, then so be it.

We not only have maps tied to specific assets because of a time period, but now we are supposed to buy multiple versions of the same map for specific campaigns? Seriously guys, go back to the drawing-board on this one! 

[Callsign112]

3 hours ago, Magic Zach said:

I didn't say the upgrade was free however.  Just that the area you already own in Normandy 1 or Channel is essentially already payed for in Normandy 2, if you already own it.

Yeah broken missions is gonna suck for many though

One way this could work is if you own the previous maps (Normandy1/Channel), then those areas would show up in Normandy 2 as high res areas. Ugra should also take the necessary steps to enable and help content creators port their old missions to the new map so the end-user doesn't need multiple versions of the same map installed.

[NineLine]

There is still a lot we are trying to figure out and how it will all end up, I have talked to Reflected and will continue to try and make sure we can transition him and all content creators over to the Normandy 2.0 easily and with the most compatibility. We are hearing all your concerns and trust me, they were all noted before the announcement on Friday. I will continue to follow up on all things here and let you guys know as soon as possible how things evolve. Try not to get too worked up though, the ultimate goal is a kick butt area to throw our Warbirds around in. 

[Callsign112]

Seriously 9Line, thank you for chiming in here.

[MAXsenna]

Thank you @NineLine!
I'm confident you all have our, the users, best interests in mind, and that this will be solved in the best way!
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[NineLine]

Ok guys, so I am looking at Farnborough, it was around in the Summer of 44, it just wasn't a RAF base, rather a RAE airfield for testing, development, etc. So I get that it wouldnt be a good base of operation, but looks like a good target (just looking at it as is currently in 2.0) So I agree it would be nice to have a RAF base other than Farnborough, but I think leaving Farnborough would be nice as well. 

 

[Tenebrae Aeternae]

It´s really hard to see how this is good news or helping the ww2 content take a step forward to become more usable. It could eaasily become the opposite, dividing the player base. I bet most servers choose to run The Channel still anyway since it offers the detailed area to faster pvp. Out of all the possible options for a ww2 map.. feeling quite puzzled.

[skywalker22]

18 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Ok guys, so I am looking at Farnborough, it was around in the Summer of 44, it just wasn't a RAF base, rather a RAE airfield for testing, development, etc. So I get that it wouldnt be a good base of operation, but looks like a good target (just looking at it as is currently in 2.0) So I agree it would be nice to have a RAF base other than Farnborough, but I think leaving Farnborough would be nice as well. 

 

If nothing else, would be good to have as many UK airfields as possible. Compared to how many of them is on the continent.

[Gunfreak]

33 minutes ago, NineLine said:

There is still a lot we are trying to figure out and how it will all end up, I have talked to Reflected and will continue to try and make sure we can transition him and all content creators over to the Normandy 2.0 easily and with the most compatibility. We are hearing all your concerns and trust me, they were all noted before the announcement on Friday. I will continue to follow up on all things here and let you guys know as soon as possible how things evolve. Try not to get too worked up though, the ultimate goal is a kick butt area to throw our Warbirds around in. 

Thank you, that is really reassuring to hear. 

[Catseye]

21 hours ago, Skewgear said:

DCS WW2 multiplayer is alive and kicking. Could be busier, as always, but that's not the purpose of this thread and I'm not about to continue derailing it.

Some questions:

1. When will we know if the old Normandy and Normandy v2 are cross-compatible? The original post is contradictory. Either missions created for Normandy v1 will work on Normandy v2 or they won't - at the moment this must include multiplayer as there's no difference in the miz file between a single player mission and multiplayer (except for official campaigns)
    
2. Project Overlord, the 4YA WW2 mission design team, has large amounts of historical reference material about the air power component of Operation Neptune and the German response to it which we've put together as we build our missions. Can we share any of this with you to assist?
    
3. What's with the airfield choices? Heathrow, Farnborough? Perhaps some USAAF airfields in England would be good to add instead of a private company's test airfield (as Heathrow was in 1944 - Fairey Aviation's all-grass factory airfield) and an experimental base (Farnborough). For the USAAF bases I'd suggest Stoney Cross and Hurn: Hurn still exists today (Bournemouth International (!) Airport) and Stoney Cross's runway layout still exists even though the site has been derelict for years.

And . . . . . Biggin Hill!

 

[NineLine]

56 minutes ago, Tenebrae Aeternae said:

It´s really hard to see how this is good news or helping the ww2 content take a step forward to become more usable. It could eaasily become the opposite, dividing the player base. I bet most servers choose to run The Channel still anyway since it offers the detailed area to faster pvp. Out of all the possible options for a ww2 map.. feeling quite puzzled.

Well sure, its possible some might just want a smaller area and run the Channel, there is no way around that. That said if we can get this tech to the point where we can merge and add to maps to make them larger, I think that is something worth doing as well. I only ask everyone to be patient as we figure it all out. 

[Catseye]

18 hours ago, FiveWire said:

why does it have to be used for frontline squadrons? Imagine making a 'Pearl Harbor' map and not including Haleiwa Field, which was just a mowed grass "emergency/test strip" with no squadrons based there. In an aviation simulator, if an aviation facility existed, it should be modeled.

The effort applied to making it could be directed into a different airfield with greater deliverables for the community.

[NineLine]

3 minutes ago, Catseye said:

The effort applied to making it could be directed into a different airfield with greater deliverables for the community.

Yes, sadly this is a thing, because development of a single airfield does take sometime, it most cases its what gives more bang for the buck.